Abstract
Water deficit (drought) is an important environmental factor affecting physiological processes in plants. The present work focuses on the study of changes in physiological responses of juvenile plants (plants in the vegetative phase of growth BBCH 14–16) of selected sorghum genotypes Dokok, 30485, Barnard Red and Ruzrok to water deficit and after rehydration. Water deficit affected the observed physiological parameters – gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence. Genotypic differences were also confirmed, with Dokok appearing to be the more sensitive genotype and Ruzrok and Barnard Red appearing to be tolerant. Following rehydration, these parameters increased but did not reach the levels of the control plants. A significant decrease in photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration (E) and fluorescence compared to the control was found in the water-deficient variant twice for 10 days and 6 days between rehydration periods. Only in the variant where water deficit (14 days) was followed by irrigation (10 days) transpiration increased in genotype 30485. Chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) also decreased significantly in this cultivar. The results suggest that a rehydration period of 14 days is insufficient to restore the photosynthetic functions of stressed sorghum plants.Â
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Dokok appeared more drought sensitive.
SorghumNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dokok appearing to be the more sensitive genotype”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Ruzrok appeared drought tolerant.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ruzrok and Barnard Red appearing to be tolerant”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Barnard Red appeared drought tolerant.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ruzrok and Barnard Red appearing to be tolerant”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
After rehydration, gas exchange and fluorescence increased but remained below control levels.
- Treatment
- rehydratione0
- Outcome
- gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescencee1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- did not reach the levels of the control plantse0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Following rehydration, these parameters increased but did not reach the levels of the control plants.”
e1“gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Repeated water deficit significantly decreased photosynthetic rate and transpiration relative to control.
- Treatment
- water-deficient variant twice for 10 days and 6 days between rehydration periodse0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration (E)e0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A significant decrease in photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration (E) and fluorescence compared to the control was found in the water-deficient variant twice for 10 days and 6 days between rehydration periods.”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Repeated water deficit significantly decreased fluorescence relative to control.
- Treatment
- water-deficient variant twice for 10 days and 6 days between rehydration periodse0
- Outcome
- fluorescencee0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A significant decrease in photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration (E) and fluorescence compared to the control was found in the water-deficient variant twice for 10 days and 6 days between rehydration periods.”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
After 14 days of deficit followed by 10 days of irrigation, transpiration increased in genotype 30485.
- Material
- 30485e0
- Treatment
- water deficit (14 days) was followed by irrigation (10 days)e0
- Outcome
- transpiratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Only in the variant where water deficit (14 days) was followed by irrigation (10 days) transpiration increased in genotype 30485.”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Fv/Fm decreased significantly in genotype 30485.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) also decreased significantly in this cultivar.”
e1“genotype 30485”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest 14 days of rehydration is insufficient to restore photosynthetic function.
- Outcome
- a rehydration period of 14 days is insufficient to restore the photosynthetic functionse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a rehydration period of 14 days is insufficient to restore the photosynthetic functions of stressed sorghum plants”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
drought · physiology: gas exchange · SorghumPositive and negative results
9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →rewatering · physiology: photosynthesis · SorghumResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.